How Extreme Will You Go?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Psycho Urban Cache #4 - Where is Padre Pio? (GCQ969)

30 feet up a lamppost

 

Psycho Urban Cache #6 - Downtown Wuthering Heights (GCQABV)

30 feet up a lamppost

Wow, I drive past those two every day and had no idea they were up there. Musta been tough getting approval from Allegeny Power to stick micros on their poles, eh?

No, no Allegheny power poles were involved. In fact, no power poles or telephone poles are involved in these caches at all.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

You mean to tell me I bought a Tyvek Bunny Suit and may not even need it! I'm going to get hit with a 10% restocking fee!!!

 

(still gearing up to tackle the rest of your PUCs, Vinny. )

Robert, KEEP the Tyvek protective bunny suit and the SCBA breathing apparatus. You will need them for our upcoming caches; that I can guarantee!

[+Two Geeks and a GPS]

We'd do it!

 

or this:

 

 

or this:

 

We'd even do this!

 

or this! Way out of the way!!

Edited January 8, 2006 by Two Geeks and a GPS

[+BlueDeuce]

Two Geeks and a GPS,

 

On your first 'before' shot of crossing the creek by vaulting over with the log/stick?

 

I would love to see the 'after' photo.

[+Two Geeks and a GPS]

On your first 'before' shot of crossing the creek by vaulting over with the log/stick?

 

I would love to see the 'after' photo.

 

Ask and you shall recieve. This is the "return" trip. The girl in the photo has just vaulted back from the island. It could have been worse, we were able to catch her before she tumbled backwards. As it was, she was waist deep! The rest of the group made it through unscathed!

 

 

Edited January 8, 2006 by Two Geeks and a GPS

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Psycho Urban Cache #4 - Where is Padre Pio? (GCQ969)

30 feet up a lamppost

 

Psycho Urban Cache #6 - Downtown Wuthering Heights (GCQABV)

30 feet up a lamppost

Wow, I drive past those two every day and had no idea they were up there. Musta been tough getting approval from Allegeny Power to stick micros on their poles, eh?

No, no Allegheny power poles were involved. In fact, no power poles or telephone poles are involved in these caches at all.

OK, a "lamp" pole. I still bet the owners of this pole or this one would be real happy to see this. That's just outright begging for trouble

 

How far is too far?

Edited January 9, 2006 by ParrotRob

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

OK, a "lamp" pole. I still bet the owners of this pole or this one would be real happy to see this. That's just outright begging for trouble

 

How far is too far?

As Robert has already noted recently in another thread, those climbs were not authorized, are not the recommended way to reach the cache and seekers are specifically warned against using such methods on the cache listing page. Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, we cannot control the behavior of individual cachers: witness the actions of heedless and careless cachers who wreck rock walls, who trespass on private property to take a shortcut to reach a cache, or who destroy bushes or trees while seeking a cache therein.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

OK, a "lamp" pole. I still bet the owners of this pole or this one would be real happy to see this. That's just outright begging for trouble

 

How far is too far?

As Robert has already noted recently in another thread, those climbs were not authorized, are not the recommended way to reach the cache and seekers are specifically warned against using such methods on the cache listing page. Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, we cannot control the behavior of individual cachers: witness the actions of heedless and careless cachers who wreck rock walls, who trespass on private property to take a shortcut to reach a cache, or who destroy bushes or trees while seeking a cache therein.

Well that's reassuring at least. Too bad there are some idiots out there pulling stupid stunts like this, especially right here in our own back yard.

[+Lone Duck]

 

So my question to you is this: would an obsticle like this prevent you from completing the task? Would you just do it or find another way? How extreme is too extreme for hiding a cache?

Being able to pay for the gas.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

OK, a "lamp" pole. I still bet the owners of this pole or this one would be real happy to see this. That's just outright begging for trouble

 

How far is too far?

As Robert has already noted recently in another thread, those climbs were not authorized, are not the recommended way to reach the cache and seekers are specifically warned against using such methods on the cache listing page. Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, we cannot control the behavior of individual cachers: witness the actions of heedless and careless cachers who wreck rock walls, who trespass on private property to take a shortcut to reach a cache, or who destroy bushes or trees while seeking a cache therein.

Well that's reassuring at least. Too bad there are some idiots out there pulling stupid stunts like this, especially right here in our own back yard.

Rob, luckily, the act of climbing the pole was a rather innocent prank, and not one of the more exteme examples of unwise cache retrieval acts by cachers. To give you a practical example of the ramifications of the silly or even stupid things that some cachers do (such as destroying rock walls or bushes, or taking shortcuts thru posted private property), here is a quick tale of one of our experiences locally:

 

We live in the so-called Frederick Watershed in a wilderness area. About 70% of the wilderness property here is owned by the City of Frederick, and cache placement is not allowed on those lands, but rather only upon private wilderness inholdings (of which there are many.) Many months ago, Sue and I placed a cute (regular) cache up at White Rocks, a famous local natural feature/landmark, along with a reviewer note pointing out that the cache had been placed on private undeveloped wilderness property and not on city-owned property. The then-reviewer (he is no longer the MD reviewer), due his distance from Maryland and his not wanting to get involved in controversy, refused to either okay or deny the cache submission, and thus placed it in a "limbo queue". In the interim, we spent 18 hours of additional research and about $200 more on (more) county tax maps, and we were able to conclusively prove that the cache was indeed placed on private wilderness (undeveloped) property (indeed, owned by the owner whom I had first cited) and not on city-owned watershed property. And, by then, we had a new reviewer in Maryland, who by virtue of being located in MD was far more tuned to local issues, and better-qeuipped to handle them.

 

Thus, we were seemingly in a great position to give our new information about property ownership to the new reviewer and ask GC.COM to get the cache listing application out of limbo and into full approval status. However, in the intervening months, a privately-held wilderness property adjacent to the property holding the White Rocks cache had been sold and a fancy new house, complete with a long driveway coming up from the road, had been built upon it. The new driveway, unfortunately, bisects the old trail which led from the road up to White Rocks. I quickly realized -- based upon prior experience -- that if the cache were approved and listed, many over-eager cache hunters either would not read, or would ignore, the BIG WARNING on our cache listing page which warned seekers to totally avoid the private property and to avoid the private driveway (the page suggests an appropriate alternate starting waypoint instead), and I realized that many would take a shortcut up the private driveway to reach the rocks, much as many (careless and reckless) local hikers and partying teenagers have started to do on their way up to White Rocks. I had, by then, already seen the damage -- across the country -- that some hapless cache hunters have wreaked upon cache sites, and I simply refused to allow that to happen in this case, as it would have created more bad press for geocaching (and would have been very inconsiderate of the neighbors, as well!) And so, we decided never to resurrect the cache application, and to leave it disabled, much to the dismay of several local cachers who love that spot.

 

Frankly, if I see evidence that local cachers are regularly mishandling the hunt for the two lamppost caches in question, I would disable both caches in a heartbeat, and the local reviewer, as well as the officers of the local geocaching society (MGS) are aware of my position on that issue. We own a number of extreme caches across the USA. We earned approval on these extreme caches by the reviewers only because we have consistently demonstrated that our cache listing page applications (along with accompanying reviewer notes) fully and accurately disclose every imaginable fact and all potential hassles or dangers to potential cache hunters and to the reviewers, to allow the reviewers to come to an equitable decision. In other words, we have earned the trust of the reviewers. In fact, we regularly receive compliments from cachers across the world about the thoroughness, the complete disclosure, and the accuracy of our cache listing pages for our extreme caches.

[+TeamGuisinger]

bump